5.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Gdynia.
6.  On 17 March 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking.
7.  On the same date the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. The court indicated that the evidence which had been gathered in the case, in particular the testimonies of other suspects, showed that there was a sufficient probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or, by other means, would obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a large number of alleged accomplices.
8. An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all of his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. In his applications and appeals, he argued that his lengthy detention had violated the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the imposition of this measure.
9.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended on several occasions, namely, on 8 June 2006 (to 2 September 2006), 24 August 2006 (to 2 December 2006) and 16 November 2006 (to 15 December 2006). In their decisions, which also concerned several other suspects, the courts stressed the fact that some of the accused – not the applicant however – had been acting in an organised criminal group. Furthermore, they referred to the fact that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed. Lastly, the courts underlined the unique nature of the proceedings involving drug-trafficking, which often took more time because offences and suspects emerged gradually.
10.  On 5 December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was charged with drug trafficking. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges of drug trafficking brought against twenty-one defendants. Although several defendants were charged with acting as part of an organised criminal group, the applicant himself was not charged with being a member of such a group.
11.  On 29 March 2007 the trial court held the first hearing. Between 29 March 2007 and 26 June 2008 the trial court scheduled nineteen hearings, seven of which were adjourned or cancelled for various reasons, such as: the failure of the police to take some of the accused from the detention centres to the court, the summer break, the resignation of one of the defence lawyers and the illness of one of the co-accused.
12.  During the court proceedings, Gdańsk Regional Court further extended the applicant's pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely, on 12 December 2006 (to 31 May 2007), an unspecified subsequent date, 25 October 2007 (to 31 January 2008) and 29 January 2008 (to 15 March 2008). The applicant appealed against the last two decisions.
13.  On 29 November 2007 and on 12 February 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), in its decisions dismissing the applicant's appeals, underlined the complexity of the case, the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable and the particular nature of the proceedings involving drug-trafficking. Having regard to the organised character of the alleged criminal activities, it also held that the applicant's detention was necessary in order to prevent him and the other co-accused from interfering with the proceedings. Finally, referring to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, it observed that the applicant's detention, although long, was justified on grounds of public interest.
14.  Because the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory two-year time‑limit, as laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Gdańsk Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, asking for the applicant's detention to be extended beyond that term. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended his detention on 20 February 2008 (to 31 March 2008) and 19 March 2008 (to 30 June 2008). The court referred in particular to the need to obtain evidence from several further witnesses.
15.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 20 February 2008 but the appeal was dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 11 March 2008.
16.  On 26 June 2008 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered the applicant to be released under police supervision. The court also barred the applicant from leaving the country. It took into account the fact that the trial court had almost finished the taking of evidence and that the risk of collusion had become less significant.
The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the above‑mentioned decision, arguing that, before being arrested, he had lived and worked in Denmark and that, by prohibiting him from leaving Poland, he was being prevented from joining his family and taking up his former job.
17.  On 16 July 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the lower court decision to place the applicant under police supervision and prohibit him from leaving the country.
18.  The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.
19.  On 17 February 2008 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Gdańsk Regional Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
20.  On 11 June 2008 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint as unfounded. It found that, out of about eighteen hearings scheduled in the case, only a few had been adjourned. The court further stated that, in December 2007, no hearing could be scheduled because the applicant had dismissed his legal-aid counsel and had been given time to appoint one of his choice. The Court of Appeal concluded that the proceedings had been conducted with the requisite speed and without undue delay.